jump to navigation

Does abortion “undermine a woman’s standing?” October 18, 2011

Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, asshatery, Basics, Dallas Diocese, disaster, foolishness, sadness, scandals, sickness, Society.
comments closed

Via Jill Stanek, a nightmare post from Slate about mothers (who have allowed some children to be born) having abortions, and all the ways to try to “sell” those women as good and decent people:

A few months ago, I was late. …[M]y NuvaRinghad failed me. I’m married, happily at that. And I’m a mother, happily as well. But our family feels “complete,” as demographers put it, at one child….[I know, keep going……]

As we lay awake at night whispering pros and cons for continuing the pregnancy… I wondered if our mere deliberating might call into question my soundness as a mother….[any thoughts, moms?  Does a woman contemplating abortion ‘undermine her soundness as a mother?’  I have my thoughts, I’d like to hear yours…..]

Is the stigma that attaches to abortion actually compounded if one makes this choice as a mother? [Uhhh…..you’re a mother at the point of conception.  Stop playing rhetorical games]  Are we right to think that terminating a pregnancy after carrying another one successfully to term will undermine our standing not just as women but as good parents? [I think it obliterates your standing as a decent, moral human being, but that’s just me. ]

I actually find the entire ‘undermine our standing’ line bizaare and unthinkable – as if the biggest concern of this author is how she’ll be viewed by others if she has an abortion.  I think that mentality calls into question her ‘standing’ as a mother right there.

The pushback continues – LifeSiteNews banned from Canadian bishops meeting October 18, 2011

Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, Basics, disaster, episcopate, foolishness, General Catholic, Interior Life, sadness, scandals, sickness, Society.
comments closed

LifeSiteNews has, over the last few years, reported on a number of stories that have badly embarrassed the Canadian bishop’s conference (CCCB), especially it’s very troubling “Development and Peace” agency, which has been found to fund abortion groups in Latin America and has numerous other problems.  LifeSiteNews has also reported on pro-abort positions argued for by various Canadian clergy, which has led to a nasty lawsuit against the organization by a Canadian priest and to a constant barrage of attacks from Fr. Rosico of Salt+Light TV (Salt+Light being tightly associated with the CCCB).  As a result, or because they just felt like it, the CCCB has banned LifeSiteNews from their annual conference in Cornwall, Ontario:

 LifeSiteNews editor-in-chief John-Henry Westen was shocked to learn that he was barred from attending the public forum as a representative from the press.

Westen had just attended Mass with the bishops and other delegates at the NavCanada Centre, where the bishops will meet from Oct. 17-21, when he learned from CCCB media relations director René Laprise that LifeSiteNews’ application for media accreditation had been rejected.  The pro-life and pro-family news agency has attended the plenary meeting for the last two years.

Laprise communicated the rejection in an Oct. 13th e-mail that Westen never received, presumably being lost somewhere in cyberspace.

“We regret to inform you that your request has been denied and you will not be granted access to this year’s meeting,” wrote Laprise.

“The leadership of our Conference has expressed serious concerns over the manner in which positions have been taken by your organization,” he continued.  “Our Executive Officers in turn have indicated that the CCCB Media Relations Officer should exercise caution in dealing with your organization.”

Hmmm……..Pavone, Corapi, Euteneuer, LifeSiteNews, attempts to shut down RCTV……..nothing to see here, folks.  Move along, move along. 

Herman Cain stridently pro-life with almost no exceptions – UPDATE! October 18, 2011

Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, awesomeness, Basics, General Catholic, Immigration, scandals, sickness, Society.
comments closed

The only exception to an outright ban on abortion he would pursue, if elected, would be if the life of the mother was at stake.  Given that all the extreme situation abortions (rape, incest, life of the mother) make up about 1% of all abortions performed, this would all but end abortion in the United States.  Unfortunately, it’s a very long road from campaign rhetoric to policy reality, but it’s a great start:

Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain said Sunday that he didn’t agree with abortion “under any circumstance.”

The candidate, who has promised to work to overturn Roe v. Wade, told NBC’s David Gregory that he believes in “life from conception.”

“I do not agree with abortion under any circumstance,” he insisted.

“Exceptions for rape and incest?” Gregory asked.

“Not for rape and incest,” Cain replied. “Because if you look at rape and incest, the percentage of those instances is so miniscule that there are other options.”

But when it came to cases where the life of the mother was at stake, the former Godfather’s Pizza CEO left a little wiggle room.

“If it’s the life of the mother, that family is going to have to make that decision.”

I’m certain even leaving “life of the mother” as an exception would be badly abused, with ideological doctors or those looking for a quick buck certifying that women must have abortions in order to “save their life” when there is really not much of a real medical danger.  But it would cut down abortion likely by a factor of at least 10.

There’s a great deal to like about this guy.  I don’t know about the skeletons in his closet, if any, or if his present rhetoric represents beliefs he has consistently held (although, I think most of them are), but much of what he says is very appealing to a faithful Catholic.  He may be a bit weak on defense of marriage, he seems to be more libertarian than conservative in that area.  I’m sure some Catholics may balk at his position on immigration, but I think his desire for a fence, electrified or not, should be strongly considered, if only as a starting point to gain control of the border for national security and other purposes and as part of a total revamp of immigration policy.  But, again, it’s a very long road from campaign rhetoric to reality.

I am happy that there are so many serious candidates that are also stridently pro-life.  But I don’t trust this guy on the life issues, or just about any other issue, at all:

When it comes to a Republican nominee, anybody but Romney is my default position.

UPDATE: Dude!  Just saw this.  I would definitely vote for this guy.  He has a sense of humor alot like mine: